MotherJones Blog: What if They Gave a Debate and Nobody Showed? Again.

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

What if They Gave a Debate and Nobody Showed? Again.

Well, somebody showed at historically black Morgan State University in Baltimore last night for the All-American Presidential Forum, just no one likely to be our next president and, man, is the Afro-sphere hacked off about it. My inbox was humming like a tea kettle.

Touted as "the first time that a panel comprised of journalists of color is represented in primetime," focused on 'minority' issues like unemployment and the criminal justice system, and moderated by Tavis Smiley on PBS, you'll understand why the GOP's A-Team all misplaced their invitations. Introducing the world's first invisible perp walk, Rudolph W. Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson found themselves silently indicted as spotlights glared on their empty lecturns all night. (If you can name the ones who showed, C-SPAN must indeed be your dearest friend. And why, oh why, was the Ayatollah Alan Keyes allowed to attend, let alone mic'd for sound? I thought the election for the President of Heaven wasn't til after the Rapture.)

Unsurprisingly, the GOPs usual-suspect mouthpieces made quick work of any notion that their homies were either too scared, too uninterested or too disgusted to show this time either. Having brushed past lame excuses about fundraising cycles and their astrologer's travel advisories, a few addressed the main issue: an auditorium full of hostile Negroes (or, seen another way, the candidates' embrace of an agenda designed to incarcerate every hostile Negro in the auditorium). Jim Geraghty wrote: "when asked about Republicans not showing up for this debate, Smiley responded, "When you reject every black invitation and every brown invitation you receive, is that a scheduling issue or is it a pattern?... I don't believe anybody should be elected president of the United States if they think along the way they can ignore people of color. That's just not the America we live in." Then, Geraghty noted, "When you pretty much accuse candidates of racism before they walk in the door, that doesn't make them more inclined to accept your invitation."

It also doesn't make your "accusers" anymore likely to vote for you. And note the disgraceful sleight of rhetorical hand: Smiley didn't "pretty much accuse" the candidates of anything except either disdaining or passing on the minority vote. However racist he may believe the GOP and/or its candidates to be, Smiley merely pointed out that minority votes have to be both valued and earned or the GOP should formally renounce its renunciation of the Southern Strategy.

Still, you have to give Tancredo, whoever he is, the nod for having the vertebrae to shoot back that he couldn't "agree with th[e] race-baiting comments" of his fellow candidates, who did indeed pander with both hands and all day Sunday. I'm a little embarrassed for them. But since when is pandering new?

But. I started this entry because I, too, am sorta queasy with all these "If not 'A,' then B must be true" denunciations. Barack Obama skips Jena and Jesse Jackson, who endorsed him, accuses him of "acting white". Black Republicans are self-hating sell-outs doing The Man's bidding. Black women who criticize the community's misogyny have been brain washed by white feminists.

If playing "spot the Uncle Tom" has played itself out, perhaps "spot the racist" should, too. Condemning actions and policies as racist is one thing, but mandatory appearances at prescribed black (or most other) venues should not become a litmus test. I hate myself for it, but I had to give Bush his props for refusing to address the NAACP for so long. The organization's rhetoric regarding him had been far too intemperate for far too long (for instance, Willie Horton-ing him with the men who dragged James Byrd to death behind a pick up truck).

Landing at Ground Zero but doing a fly-by over Katrina's devastation? Racist.

Ignoring those who dog you unmercifully, let alone immaturely? Good time management.

Comments

Who is Debra Dickerson and why can she not spell Ron Paul. The only viable candidate from either party, for honesty,fairness,non Racist,all around good person with no desire to have our troops, many of who are black, scattered around the world and being killed daily. The No shows should withdraw as they are only serving as clutter. For a Free constitutional country, if that is your desire, you will vote for Ron Paul.

Posted by: jean on 09/30/07 at 3:48 PM Respond

You right jean.

Posted by: Kathy on 09/30/07 at 4:25 PM Respond

Ron Paul is not acceptable to black voters because black voters are dominated by a Big Man -- pick one -- who gets pork from Washington and pretends to dish it out. The only possible exception to the Big Man hypocrisy has been Louis Farrakhan and since he's a "racist" and "anti-Semite" he can't tell his people to vote for some small Federal government guy like Ron Paul.

Posted by: James Bowery on 09/30/07 at 11:06 PM Respond

Ron Paul is unacceptable to black voters because he would not make a good president. He keeps telling America that he's not ready, such as at the debate when he said he wants to both kill the minimum wage and legalize drugs. I think this country has had enough of leaders telling them why things will work in theory, when in practice there's always something that gets screwed up.

Posted by: delphi on 10/01/07 at 4:49 AM Respond

keeping drugs illegal isn't doing all that much to help black folks all that much or white or asian folks or anybody else other than result in 100s of thousands of them going to jail each year and causing thousands to die in turf wars

i would have thought that most blacks would have absorbed the lessons of prohibition the same as everybody else
it didn't work
it doesn't work
it won't work
it can't work
and Ron Paul is the only candidate who has the guts to say so

you're right
America has had enough of politicians telling us why things will work in theory and then they don't work
drug prohibition and the minimum wage were excellent examples for you to make the point

Posted by: jet on 10/01/07 at 8:27 AM Respond

Not ready? I believe that whether America is ready or not, it is imperative that we have some new, progressive ideas put into place and Ron Paul is offering to do just that. How is he the one who isn't ready when the rest of the candidates just spout the same old speeches (stricter law enforcement, harsh punishments against drug users) when, like Prohibition, it doesn't get the job done? Ron Paul is saying something new, and personally, I'm quite ready for it.

Posted by: Defola on 10/01/07 at 8:37 AM Respond

What I'm trying to discern is what actual value, if any, is
there in participating in or
listening to any more of this
debate? It's kind of clear
that, party politics and platform planks aside, we're
headed for a fairly predictable outcome, one that
involves higher taxes, less
civil liberties, and foregone
conclusions come election time, now move along, citizen...

Posted by: Bert on 10/01/07 at 5:02 PM Respond

Is it not a fact that Ron Paul is an exponent of the Hayekian (Austrian) school of economics which,more or less, worships the "invisible hand of the marketplace", espouses the philosophy that government which governs the least governs the best and provided a good deal of populist support for the campaigns and policies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan ( e.g. tax breaks for the rich, subsidizing large corporations and dismantling of Occupational and Environmental protections?)

If you look at the record ( in Wikipaedia, for example) you'll see that voters in the Districts in Texas which Mr. Paul represented don't see a big difference between him and his successor Tom Delay. In all his service in Congress I'm told by his supporters that Mr. Paul sponsored only one bill- a law that would have exempted restruant services tips from the income tax.

Rather than a change of direction Ron Paul's candidacy (except for the anti-war part represents "same ole, same ole". Remember what Isaiah Berlin said: "Liberty to the wolves means death to the lambs".

Posted by: John Shaplin on 10/03/07 at 2:25 AM Respond

"Is it not a fact that Ron Paul ...more or less, worships the "invisible hand of the marketplace"..

No. It is not.
It is a fact that Ron Paul believes that free markets perform better than central market planners.

"...espouses the philosophy that government which governs the least governs the best..."

Yeah. It was Thomas Jefferson who first made that statement more or less in that form, and it's one of the principles this nation was founded on.

"...( e.g. tax breaks for the rich, subsidizing large corporations..."

Why is it that those on the left think ANY tax break is a "Tax Break For The Rich"?
Why is it that the Democrats, in the 40 years I've been watching politics, have NEVER proposed ANY Tax Break for ANYONE, unless it was a counter-proposal to one that Repubs had put on the table first? And "Tax Breaks For the Rich" is such a tired and tiresome mantra...
Liberals don't even bother to look at what a proposal for reducing taxes actually IS, before they start chanting it. Lower taxes are just BAD, if you ask 'The Left'.
Also, if you really think Ron Paul favors "subsidizing large corporations", it's glaringly obvious that you haven't listened to a word the man has said! That is 180 degrees and several light years away from Paul's positions!

"..dismantling of Occupational and Environmental protections?)"

Again, no. Dismantling agencies that don't work, and returning functions to the states that the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize federal government to engage in, yes.

"If you look at the record (in Wikipaedia, for example).."

Oh yeah..., Wiki, "The Faith Based Encyclopedia"!! GREAT Source...

of Entertainment!
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504a

"In all his service in Congress I'm told by his supporters that Mr. Paul sponsored only one bill- a law that would have exempted restruant services tips from the income tax."

Gee.., your other sources are just as reliable as Wikipedia, aren't they?

Statistics from the Congressional Record:
Ronald Paul has sponsored 340 bills since Jan 7, 1997
Paul has also co-sponsored 1838 bills during the same time period.

Some of Paul's most recently sponsored bills include... H.R. 3664: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that tips shall not be subject to income or employment taxes.

H.R. 3600: To enforce the guarantees of the first, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States by prohibiting certain devices used to deny the right to participate in certain elections.

H.R. 3601: To restore to taxpayers awareness of the true cost of government by eliminating the withholding of income taxes by employers and requiring individuals to pay income taxes in monthly installments, and for other purposes.

H.R. 3602: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 with respect to retransmission consent and must-carry for cable operators and satellite carriers.

"Rather than a change of direction Ron Paul's candidacy .. represents "same ole, same ole"..."

LOL! Nice Try!

"Remember what Isaiah Berlin said: "Liberty to the wolves means death to the lambs"."

Oh, by ALL Means, let's protect those lambs from LIBERTY!!
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said:
"Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free.
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

It might be nice to Read Dr. Ron Paul's Actual Stated Positions,
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
and not slant them in the least flattering way you can think of, in an effort to prevent people from listening to what he ACTUALLY has to say.

Posted by: Nice Slant Job, John on 10/03/07 at 10:26 AM Respond